Back and Feeling N00bish

CarthageFTW

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
99
Location
Columbus OHIO
So I'm back after my brief apperance :p. I'm suprised at how much blogging and WoW can take away form posting here. Anyways, I've booted up Civ and once again I'm diving back into the game. Only I have a question. Is it smart for me to go ahead and try Monarch after doing Regent? Mind you I haven't played Civ for the past 2 months, but before that I was a Regent player.
 
very little difference between the two, IMO. Going by all my recent games, a solid start will keep the game close until the IA, at which point you should pull ahead. At regent, a solid start shows you slightly ahead at the turn of the AA, and by the IA you generally destroy everyone.
 
So I'm back after my brief apperance :p. I'm suprised at how much blogging and WoW can take away form posting here. Anyways, I've booted up Civ and once again I'm diving back into the game. Only I have a question. Is it smart for me to go ahead and try Monarch after doing Regent? Mind you I haven't played Civ for the past 2 months, but before that I was a Regent player.

I spent a long time at warlord before moving straight to monarch after 1 try at regent--no problems. If you spent much time at regent, I'd say monarch won't phase you, even after a layoff. Just hit the lux slider earlier than you are used to in the early going, as you run into trouble when the 3rd cit is born.

kk
 
This is not a big jump for most players, and not a big difference in strategy. The AI is now getting a 10% build bonus, so should be a touch quicker. The number of citizens born content is similar on both levels (Regent and Monach; perhaps Snarkhunter is thinking between Warlord and Monarch).
 
I really think people get too worked up over jumping up in difficulty levels. It's possible to find out what's coming (i.e. the decreased happiness and increased production bonuses). It's a sliding scale (well, until you hit DG and they get an extra settler) so just go for it.
 
A quantum-sized leap actually comes as pretty smal... so Regent to Monarch comes as a quantum leap. Monarch to Emperor an atomic leap. Emperor to Demi-God a molecularly leap.
 
A quantum-sized leap actually comes as pretty smal... so Regent to Monarch comes as a quantum leap. Monarch to Emperor an atomic leap. Emperor to Demi-God a molecularly leap.

Picky, picky. I did not mean a several elctron volt change in a valence energy of an electron when a photon is absorbed or released but rather an abrupt as opposed to gradual change.

quantum jump 
–noun 1. Physics. an abrupt transition of a system described by quantum mechanics from one of its discrete states to another, as the fall of an electron in an atom to an orbit of lower energy.
2. any sudden and significant change, advance, or increase.

Also called quantum leap.

Tough crowd, but Spoonwood, I appreciate someone who actually knows his/her particle physics!:nuke::goodjob::nuke:
 
Well you can argue a quantum leap as large comapred to the quantum particle I guess. Or you can say that it refers to an abrupt change. Anyways, I understood the phrase... I just find it strange how people use the term "quantum leap" to mean a "large leap", when a quantum leap comes out extremely tiny in size compared to us.
 
Well you can argue a quantum leap as large comapred to the quantum particle I guess. Or you can say that it refers to an abrupt change. Anyways, I understood the phrase... I just find it strange how people use the term "quantum leap" to mean a "large leap", when a quantum leap comes out extremely tiny in size compared to us.

They mean it as a change in regime, abruptly, more than a large change. It is the discontinuity that counts, not the size; no way to approach the change slowly--either it happens or it doesn't.

kk
 
Top Bottom